The differences, it is learnt, relate to disclosing in the report names of six Indian players which cropped up during the investigations.
The other issue concerns the alleged involvement of Chennai Super Kings official and BCCI president N Srinivasan’s son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, in betting and passing inside information to bookies.
- Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar Says Army donation Is Voluntary
- Rock On 2 Trailer Launch: Farhan Akhtar, Shraddha Kapoor, Prachi Desai On Their Roles
- Cyrus Mistry’s Career Timeline
- Stalker Kills Woman At Metro Station In Gurgaon: Here’s What Happened
- Bigg Boss 10 October 24 Review: Seven Contestants Nominated For Evictions
- Power Struggle In Mulayam’s Party: Here’s What People Reacted
- 1 Dead, 5 Injured In Low Intensity Explosion In Delhi’s Naya Bazaar Area
- Delhi: Naya Bazar Explosion Cctv Footage
- Twitter War Between Congress Leader Amarinder Singh & Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal
- Life Of Actor-Dancer Ashwini Ekbote Who Died During A Performance
- Idea Exchange With Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
- PM Narendra Modi Bats For Equal Rights : Here What He Said On Triple Talaq
- Uncle Shivpal Targets Akhilesh, Claims CM Told Him He Will Form Another Party
- Pakistan Continues To Violate Ceasefire In RS Pura
- Samajwadi Party’s internal fight divides SP
Both reports — one signed by former Punjab and Haryana chief justice Mukul Mudgal and Additional Solicitor General L Nageswara Rao, the other by senior advocate Nilay Dutta — agree that Gurunath was an important “team official” and did indulge in betting.
However, Dutta strongly asserts “the conclusion awaits a final determination in the criminal proceedings where the raw footage and the tapes (of Gurunath’s conversation with bookies) would be proved scientifically”.
Mudgal and Rao also mention the need for a forensic test of the tapes but they have relied more on police findings to nail Gurunath.
Mudgal and Dutta, who is also an official with the Assam Cricket Association, refused to comment when reached by The Indian Express.
Those in the know say the two have not been on the same page even during the investigation and more so when it came to taking a wider view on the factors corrupting the game.
Dutta has said “what was investigated was merely the tip of the iceberg. Names of various other national and international players came up in course of the investigations but these information have not been investigated by any agency (sic)”.
“It appears that names of six prominent Indian capped players are available in tapes in connection with dealings with bookies while two of these prominent Indian capped players have also been named by none other than a former president of BCCI,” Dutta has said.
Mudgal and Rao stressed the “conflict of interest” issue and mostly stuck to investigating the role of officials and player agents. “The committee does not wish to further elaborate on details or discuss the evidence on record in detail, in light of the pending criminal proceedings,” their report said in conclusion.
“The committee during its interactions and on review of documents provided to it has come across many allegations of sporting fraud. However, as of now, these are mere allegations and we do not think it proper to cast aspersions on the persons named unless investigations are conducted. The names of the persons and allegations in view of the sensitive nature of the information are being provided separately in a sealed envelope,” they said.